YNOT VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

Facts:
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 626, the President has given orders to prohibit
the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not complying
with the requirements of the said Order,
“No carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no
carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The carabao or
carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be
subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National
Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to
deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit,
in the case of carabaos.”
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo
on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of
Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. The petitioner sued for recovery,
and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of
a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court
sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced,
ordered the confiscation of the bond.

Petitioner: The executive order is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright

confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries.
His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner
a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
He complains that the measure should not have been presumed, and so sustained, as
constitutional. There is also a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative
power by the former President under Amendment No. 6 (granted Pres. Marcos
legislative powers) of the 1973 Constitution.

The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really presidential

decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing an existing law. It was
issued by President Marcos not for the purpose of taking care that the laws were faithfully
executed but in the exercise of his legislative authority under Amendment No. 6. It was
provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment there existed a grave emergency or
a threat or imminence thereof or whenever the legislature failed or was unable to act
adequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action, he could, in
order to meet the exigency, issue decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to
have the force and effect of law. As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the
exercise of that extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question
the validity of the executive order.
Respondent: Police power is now invoked by the government to justify Executive
Order No. 626-A, amending the basic rule in Executive Order No. 626, prohibiting the
slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. The original measure was issued
for the reason, as expressed in one of its Whereases, that "present conditions demand
that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small
farmers who rely on them for energy needs." We affirm at the outset the need for such
a measure. In the face of the worsening energy crisis and the increased dependence of
our farms on these traditional beasts of burden, the government would have been remiss,
indeed, if it had not taken steps to protect and preserve them.

Issue: W/N Executive Order No. 626 is constitutional

Held: No.
The questionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as
prescribed in the questioned executive order. It is there authorized that the seized
property shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions
as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the
case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of
Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos." The phrase "may see fit" is an
extremely generous and dangerous condition. It gives the authority to officers to
determine where the seized property shall go and this will lead to partiality, abuse, and
even corruption, in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative
powers.
The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the
method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose
of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner
of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is
immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative
authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation
of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the
officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution
of the properties arbitrarily taken.
For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional.